Minutes of the Regular Joint Meeting of the Oakley City Council/Oakley City Council Acting as the Successor Agency to the Oakley Redevelopment Agency/Oakley Public Financing Authority held June 11, 2024
1) OPENING MATTERS
1.1 Call to Order and Roll Call of the Oakley City Council/Oakley City Council Acting as the Successor Agency to the Oakley Redevelopment Agency/Oakley Public Financing Authority
Mayor Anissa Williams called the regular meeting to order at 6:30 p.m. in the Oakley City Council Chambers located at 3231 Main Street, Oakley, California. Vice Mayor Shannon Shaw and Councilmembers Dr. George Fuller, Hugh Henderson and Aaron Meadows were also present.
1.2 Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag (Boy Scout Troop 152) Four members of Troop 152 led the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag.
1.3 Presentation of Proclamations
1. Juneteenth (Odessa LeFrancois and Michael Dupray, East Contra Costa County NAACP) The proclamation was mailed to the recipients as they were unable to attend the meeting.
2. LGBTQ+ Pride Month (Jeanette Ruddick, East Bay LGBTQIA Teen and Family Support Group) Mayor Williams presented the proclamation for LGBTQ+ Pride Month to Jeanette Ruddick and members of the East Bay LGBTQIA Teen and Family Support Group.
Ms. Ruddick shared information regarding the history of Pride Month and the importance of this month to honor the impact of events and advocate for rights. She thanked the Council for its support.
1.4 Update from Contra Costa Transportation Authority Citizens Advisory Committee (Kai-Christian Torf)
Mayor Williams announced this update has been rescheduled to July 9. 2) PUBLIC COMMENTS
Roger Mammon provided information on the Delta including that the site reservoir project has been fast tracked, ignoring CEQA, and in speaking with Barbara at Protect the Delta, things will be happening to protect the Delta. He mentioned a lot of the meetings regarding the Delta occur on Tuesdays; the Delta Heritage Authority Area Management Plan Advisory Committee will meet Tuesday, June 18, 1:30pm-3:30pm, at the Rio Vista Senior Center, and today there was a meeting at the Big Break Center Just Transitions in the Delta to discuss what people feel about the Delta and what can be done to address various things going on. He mentioned he noticed that they didn’t talk about reducing exports; they talked about what could be done to spend more money to fix it. He mentioned the next meeting will be in about 9-10 months in Rio Vista or Walnut Grove.
Roxanne Warner commented that as a licensed psychiatric technician and single mother of two successful adult children, we all know life is challenging and even more challenging today. She requested the Council highly consider the needs of heroic veterans and seniors of our community who have taught others, raised children, and fought for our freedom in wars to provide quality of life for all of us. She mentioned that the Older Americans Act places high regard with communities that cater to its seniors by utilizing widely used senior centers, services such as social and health benefits, resources, building of increased friendship, increases in healthier meal planning, nutrition availability, fitness, transportation services, integrational programs, and being of service to all in the community. She explained that all of this incorporates renewal of sense of purpose for veterans and seniors, decreases isolation, lowers depression, and decreases substance abuse, for overall quality of life and longevity. She shared that many veterans and seniors have minimum availability to skills available to children and teens. She commented that veterans and seniors deserve to have a face with a concrete structure and dependability to build a better sense of purpose to hand down as an example to future generations. She mentioned seniors need less chaos, less interruptions, and more structure, so they too can continue to thrive. She explained intimacy gets lost in large, bureaucratic, government-run buildings where everything is shared. She mentioned the only investment she brings is a heart for service so seniors and veterans can exude their duty to be the best examples for future generations. She asked the Council to please consider all avenues to the decision-making process of an adequate, well thought out plan for them so they may relocate appropriately to do their jobs well for the community. She inquired if their name is good for funding and if they do not deserve adequate space with their needs met. She mentioned that better purpose, thriving, and quality of life lived, is the best example they can give to children today.
Allan Perry commented that he has 35 signatures on a petition from people that wish to have the food program at the Senior Center continue. He shared that every week they see new faces in their line, some avoid contact because they are embarrassed to be in a food line, some come as early as 5:30am to get in line for tickets they distribute at 9am, and at 8am, there is not a parking space available and the line is around the building, often with 75-80 people in line, serving 300 families; they don’t want to stand in line with walkers and canes, but need to stand in line as that might be the only food they get for the week. He added that many walk from the area because they don’t have a car and to end the program would put a lot of those in the neighborhood around the Senior Center in hardship. He mentioned there are more than 11,000 senior centers in the United States with 586 in California. He shared information regarding cities that have smaller populations than Oakley that have senior centers.
Mike Castro commented that on May 1, they had meeting and Donna Baker asked about where seniors are going to be and City Manager Joshua McMurray said this is not time or place to talk about it, and again on May 15, he asked Mr. McMurray, and the same thing was said to him. He mentioned he told Mr. McMurray if seniors are asked to park across the street that it is an accident waiting to happen to which Mr. McMurray said it wasn’t. He commented that he obviously doesn’t know seniors because it is. He mentioned this was on May 21 and he believes Mr. McMurray mentioned this was the first he had heard of it so the seniors can’t believe what comes out of his mouth anymore; they feel he is not for the seniors but just for the library and funds, so they feel he should be replaced with a better person that is for the seniors also which they don’t believe he is.
Chris Paloma, Field Representative with Carpenters Local Union 152 in Martinez covering Contra Costa County, requested the Council implement labor standards in Oakley. He mentioned there is tax fraud across the city, county, and state amounting to $8.4 billion per year. He explained that workers are building the homes we live in, yet they are being taken advantage of, they are not receiving livable wages, not receiving health care, and not able to join an apprenticeship program to better their situation. He mentioned there is no compliance, even prevailing wage projects still do not provide health care; those contractors are putting it on the check and health care is still project to project. He shared that this is back-breaking work, with shifts sometimes 12-hours in the heat, for minimum wage. He explained that tax fraud hurts all of us as taxes go toward things such as building bridges and schools in our communities. He mentioned having pre-qualification language to require contractors not only to pay prevailing wage, but also provide health care to workers, and to help enforce the provisions, as the DIR is spread too thin for enforcement. He added he would love to sit down and discuss these things with any Councilmembers.
William Carpenter commented that soon, the City will demolish the current Senior Center building to build more low-income housing. He mentioned as a disabled veteran and more senior than the average, he appreciates the opportunity to visit the senior center which is geared toward his generation. He mentioned living alone and independently, he welcomes the opportunity to visit and socialize with those of his generation as they share the same experiences and interests. He mentioned it is a place he can go once a week to share a balanced meal with others and swap stories. He agreed the new library and community center are needed but asked if it should it be at the expense of seniors. He suggested one of the proposed buildings be expanded to two stories to accommodate a separate Senior Center while keeping the other planned facilities. He mentioned that the City currently envisions the Senior Center as having a couple of office spaces housed either by the Recreation Center or proposed library/community center with no space for the functions and services conducted solely for the senior community, and in his opinion, adequate parking has not been proposed adjacent to the proposed library that would accommodate elderly and handicapped, especially if a Tri-Delta Transit stop is created there. He added that the City indicates that a parking lot located one or more blocks away isn’t a problem for seniors with mobility issues. He mentioned the City says it has insufficient funding for seniors and that seniors and veterans are not involved in securing funding for the separate senior facility. He asked the public if this is not the function of City leadership that values their older citizens or are they just using the Senior Center and veterans as a ruse to get funding. He mentioned seniors still have value and want to share; they still have meaning and worth. He urged the Oakley public to get involved as they too will be seniors some day; their needs and wants are being cast aside and they can see what is happening to the seniors, know it can happen to them, say it is not right, and support their fathers, grandfathers, and as in his case, great-grandfathers, many whom helped build this community. He mentioned they need a facility large enough to accommodate the functions of the senior community, run by seniors who understand the issues of growing old and the special needs they have, a facility that provides services geared for the older is what is needed to be called an Oakley Senior Center. He mentioned they do not need a small office space in a corner of a library just as many young folks want to hide old things or no longer use or value.
Donna Baker commented that she appreciates the hard work that has gone in so far for our community and she applauds the effort that has gone in so far for the library/Senior Center building. She mentioned she understands that for the City to qualify for grants it needs to include seniors and veterans. She suggested the seniors keep the current location of the Senior Center and the lot adjacent to it that has already been given to the City, and together they apply for the grants so the seniors may continue to use the property, and depending upon the funding, the seniors may or may not have to use a small portion of that $7.5 million set aside just for the library. She mentioned available state and federal grants include grants for senior centers, for Older Americans Act, for veteran groups, and transportation. She added that meanwhile, they can temporarily move library items to temporary classroom portables already owned by the library to a City property of the City’s choice, to allow Freedom High School their space and have temporary space for the library, a win for the Liberty Union High School District, for Freedom High School, for the Oakley Seniors, for the veterans, for 4-H, for the Food Bank to continue meeting needs of citizens, for Meals on Wheels that operates out of the Senior Center building, for CoCo Café which eventually wants to expand its program to 5 days a week, for public transportation, and most of all for the Friends of the Oakley Library because it will give them the gift of time to continue to put out a wide net for funding for an entire 28,000 square foot library.
An online comment was submitted by Jenifer Johnson who requested her comment be read into the meeting record which Mayor Williams read. Her comment was regarding the lack of available spots for summer camps. She suggested instead of using grant money for one free week, to put the money toward additional spots all summer long, utilize 6 elementary sites and 2 middle school sites to run smaller camps in the multi-purpose room to accommodate capacity that the Recreation Center cannot hold, and soon when there is an open building (library) on the Freedom High School campus they can solve two problems, staff (high schoolers) and location.
An online comment was submitted by Juliana Williams who expressed she is unhappy with the City approval of apartment complexes. She urged the Council to stop allowing unchecked building and expressed that she and her neighbors want Oakley to remain a small town.
Claudia Correia submitted a written comment mentioning that the Senior Center is a place to meet and socialize and to deactivate it is criminal in her opinion.
Laura Collins submitted a written comment that seniors need livelihood too and their wisdom and experience can help the younger generation.
Eleanor Railey submitted a written comment that she is not an Oakley resident but has attended various functions at the Senior Center and finds the volunteers helpful and friendly. She mentioned she agrees they need a place to adequately continue all functions offered. She asked the Council to put their parents, grandmother, etc. in their place.
Donna Baker submitted a written comment to apologize on behalf of the Oakley Senior Center for comments made by Mike Castro regarding Mr. McMurray.
Maria Reyes mailed a comment to the Council regarding the Senior Center, explaining the many services offered at the Senior Center and requesting the City Council consider providing a building that can accommodate all the services offered, rather than considering low-income housing. She mentioned it feels like the City is throwing the seniors out onto the streets and asked the Council to consider that one day they will be seniors too and would like a place to go to meet people, learn different things, eat lunch and play bingo. 3) COUNCILMEMBER COMMENTS
Councilmember Meadows suggested scheduling with Mr. Mammon once a month to allow him more than three minutes to speak to update the Council on Delta matters.
Dr. Fuller commented that he thinks they need to recognize the trades in terms of what has been going on with construction. He mentioned that California Attorney General Bonta recently gave $3 million to Bay Area district attorneys to investigate wage theft/wage fraud throughout the Bay Area; Contra Costa County has received over $750k so it is a problem. He shared that on 1/1/1863, President Lincoln signed the Emancipation Proclamation to free every slave in the Confederacy; it had to be carried throughout the Confederacy to be heard by Union soldiers. He mentioned on April 9, 1865, the Civil War ended and on June 19, 1865, Union soldiers arrived in Galveston, Texas to provide word of the Proclamation and the end of the Civil War. He shared that he had the privilege to work with Dr. Bernie Roy in the Watts area for the first magnet school because if you were a BIPOC person you had to ride the bus to go to school in the San Fernando Valley, and he brought it in. He mentioned in working there, he got to know about Juneteenth and the Black National Anthem written by James Weldon Johnson in 1900 to celebrate liberty. He commented that when he arrived in the City of Oakley, the City was not very friendly in terms of BIPOC, so he pushed for a Juneteenth celebration, and thanks to his colleagues, it has been approved. He announced that on June 15 in the Civic Center, the City of Oakley will have a Juneteenth celebration and he is happy to bring cultures together. He also commented that seniors are a demographic minority and he understands that seniors need their own senior center.
4) CONSENT CALENDAR
4.1 Approve Minutes from the Regular Joint City Council/City Council Acting as the Successor Agency to the Redevelopment Agency and Special Public Financing Authority Meeting held May 28, 2024 (Libby Vreonis, City Clerk)
4.2 Approve Minutes from the Special Joint City Council and Planning Commission Meeting held May 21, 2024 (Libby Vreonis, City Clerk)
4.3 Report Out of Closed Session Memo (Derek Cole, City Attorney)
4.4 Adopt a Resolution recognizing the 150-Year Anniversary of the Town of Byron, California (Libby Vreonis, City Clerk)
4.5 Waive the Second Reading and adopt Ordinance No. 8-24 Adding Oakley Municipal Code Section 9.1.1230(d) to Address Outdoor and Indoor Marijuana Cultivation Exceeding Six Plants as Separate Offense (Libby Vreonis, City Clerk)
4.6 Waive the Second Reading and adopt Ordinance No. 9-24 Adding Oakley Municipal Code Section 4.41.120 to Include an Administrative Hearing Process Related to Unlicensed Commercial Cannabis Activity (Libby Vreonis, City Clerk)
4.7 Adopt a Resolution Ordering Specifications of the Election Order Regarding the November 5, 2024 City of Oakley General Municipal Election for Districts 1, 3 and 5 (Libby Vreonis, City Clerk)
4.8 Adopt a Resolution Designating Election Officials for the November 5, 2024 General Municipal Election (Libby Vreonis, City Clerk)
4.9 Adopt a Resolution accepting the work associated with Capital Improvement Project Number (CIP) 205-Downtown Gateway Plaza and Infrastructure Improvement Project (Kevin Rohani, P.E., Public Works Director/City Engineer)
4.10 Adopt a Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to Execute an Agreement for Landscape Architectural Services with Dutchover & Associates to provide contract landscape and irrigation plan review and inspection services for the City of Oakley related to projects for Fiscal Years (FY) 2024/25 and 2025/26 (Kevin Rohani, P.E., Public Works Director/City Engineer)
4.11 Adopt a Resolution Accepting the Work Associated with Capital Improvement Project Number (CIP) 255 -Cypress Grove Subdivision Pump Station Building Project (Kevin Rohani, P.E., Public Works Director/City Engineer)
4.12 Adopt a Resolution Approving a list of projects for Fiscal Year 2024/25 Funded by Senate Bill 1: The Road Repair and Accountability Act of 2017 (Kevin Rohani, P.E., Public Works Director/City Engineer)
4.13 Adopt a Resolution Awarding a Contract to DC Electric Group, Inc. for Traffic Signal, Street Light Maintenance and Repair and USA Ticket Marking Services for Fiscal Years (FY) 2024/25 and 2025/26 (Kevin Rohani, P.E., Public Works Director/City Engineer)
4.14 Adopt a Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to Execute an Agreement with AireSpring for City Telephone and Internet Services for Fiscal Year (FY) 2024/2025 through 2027/2028 (Danielle Navarro, Assistant City Manager)
4.15 Adopt a Resolution Authorizing the Amendment for the Irrigation Well Installation at the City’s Freedom Basin Project--Capital Improvement Project (CIP) Number 265 to cover the cost for the PG&E Electric Service Application and Amendment No. 1 to the contract with Martell Water Systems, Inc. for additional costs for the well construction (Kevin Rohani, P.E., Public Works Director/City Engineer)
4.16 (Continued from May 14, 2024) Adopt a Resolution Accepting a Grant Deed Conveying to the City of Oakley Certain Real Property Interests (portions of APN 034-090-022, located at Laurel Road and O’Hara Avenue) (Derek Cole, City Attorney)
4.17 Request Approval of a Proclamation for a Future Agenda (Wound Care Awareness Month) (Libby Vreonis, City Clerk)
Mayor Williams announced that items 4.1, 4.4 and 4.16 would be pulled.
Dr. Fuller requested items 4.9 and 4.13 be pulled.
It was moved by Councilmember Henderson and seconded by Dr. Fuller to approve the remainder of the Consent Calendar. Motion was unanimous and so ordered. (5-0) Item 4.1
City Clerk Libby Vreonis noted revisions to the minutes within items 7.2 and 8.1.
It was moved by Dr. Fuller and seconded by Vice Mayor Shaw to approve the minutes as corrected. Motion was unanimous and so ordered. (5-0)
Item 4.4
Mayor Anissa Williams called upon Linda Thuman, Chair of the Byron Municipal Authority, who thanked the City for recognizing the Town of Byron.
Claire Alaura, District Representative for County Board Supervisor Burgis’ Office, submitted a comment card, in support of recognition of the Town of Byron.
It was moved by Councilmember Meadows and seconded by Councilmember Henderson to adopt the resolution. Motion was unanimous and so ordered. (5-0) Item 4.9
Dr. Fuller commented that when he drives westbound on Main Street from Rose Avenue, he does not see a disabled parking space until he arrives in front of Grocery Outlet. He mentioned there used to be disabled parking but now there is two-hour parking in front of the Bistro, all diagonal parking, but no parking for someone in a wheelchair if they want to go to the Bistro because the nearest place he can find is the dental office or Guanatos where there are two disabled spaces in the parking lot. He mentioned Mr. Rohani is asking for approval and they will address it further with the budget; they have been told that projects include ADA, not just what is allocated for ADA within the budget, yet this project reduces the number of places to park on Main Street for handicapped people. He shared that he had to park at Guanatos to go to Chrome and he was able to walk but to consider a person that may be in a wheelchair to have to roll in the heat for that distance. He inquired why there were promises to add more ADA and now there is less.
Public Works Director/City Engineer Kevin Rohani commented that he does not recall the specifics of the promises Dr. Fuller mentioned, but this project is not on Main Street; this is the backside of Main Street from Second Street to Newman Way. He explained that it is a brandnew roadway, there is an abundance of ADA accessible parking for vehicles and vans in the parking lot that will service customers of all the businesses along Main Street, it exceeds the building requirements for ADA accessibility, it included ten EV charging stations with some for ADA accessibility in the back of the building, and he would be happy to provide a tour at his convenience. He mentioned the ADA along Main Street Dr. Fuller is referring to is a separate project, constructed in 2017, and generally they do not place ADA parking spaces along the streets; they are in the parking lots.
Dr. Fuller commented that there is no way to access that parking lot and it requires people who need ADA access to go through the back door, something that is never pleasant to contemplate.
He mentioned he can’t approve it; the vicinity map shows Main Street and the parking lot. He mentioned when it is open and accessible, they can look at it again, but there was handicapped parking taken from the front of the Bistro and replaced with two-hour parking and now there is no handicapped parking in front and you can’t access it from the rear due to the chain link fence and barricades, unless maybe someone can drive to Guanatos and drive all the way back. He mentioned right now, he doesn’t see access from Main Street so he will not vote to approve it, but would look at it again when there is accessibility and people can park and with dignity, get out of their vehicles and go into the restaurant.
Mr. Rohani mentioned that the construction fences will come out after the finishing touches are completed for Summerfest. He mentioned the parking lot can be accessed through Journey Way, next to the Bistro, opposite Second Street, and on O’Hara Avenue all the barricades will come out and the parking lot will open, and also through Newman Way, so there is full accessibility throughout the campus that will open in a couple of weeks. He mentioned regarding the ADA parking spaces along Main Street, that Downtown Oakley didn’t look this way eight years ago; there was no curb, gutter or sidewalk, and while businesses may have painted handicapped parking, it may not have been up to code, and as part of the City’s projects, everything must meet the latest ADA and Building codes which staff has done.
Mayor Williams inquired where the closest ADA parking space is located for someone going to the Bistro.
Mr. Rohani mentioned the closest space is in the parking lot west of O'Hara Avenue; it has sidewalks that someone can easily use to go to the Bistro as well as handicapped ramps, with all street intersections visibly marked. He offered to take anyone on a tour and mentioned it is fully accessible, it has not opened yet because they are getting it ready for Summerfest.
Mayor Williams inquired if a vehicle can drive through to access everything once inside the parking lot.
Mr. Rohani mentioned east of the Bistro, Journey Way runs parallel to the railway right-of-way and connects to Norcross, the intersection at O’Hara will open and barricades will be removed, all of the parking lots are looped together, and will be fully accessible, including ADA parking spots for EV chargers.
Dr. Fuller inquired if there is a street sign or any sign at the entrance to the parking lot from Main Street indicating there is handicapped parking, besides having to drive it, which he does not prefer to do because the driveways are narrow. He commented that now handicapped persons have to drive further than anyone else going to the Bistro to access a marked parking space. He inquired if there are any signs on Main Street that indicate there is handicapped parking and once in the parking lot, if there are any signs showing which way to go to find handicapped parking.
Mr. Rohani mentioned these are referred to as wayfinding signs and currently they do not exist; it is taken that once everyone gets into circulation with the parking lots, everyone finds their way. He mentioned they can add a sign for anyone driving on Main Street to find parking in the back.
Dr. Fuller asked him to try and imagine if the only way you can go any place is through a wheelchair, and to do that, you have to hook the wheelchair to the back of your van, drive it down, pull down the wheelchair, get in it, and wheel yourself to the Bistro and back, so for anyone disabled, it is just not a matter of “go on your way”.
Mr. Rohani mentioned he understands. He commented that the parking lot even has van ADA parking spaces.
Mayor Williams commented that she assumes that municipalities must meet the highest standards and requirements for ADA, including how close spaces must be to entrances and exits, to make it the most user-friendly and accessible. She mentioned she realizes there are some old ADA issues that they must get caught up on that seem different from this item. She inquired if audits are conducted on each project to show that they are meeting the highest standards of ADA accessibility because she assumes they would be subject to a lawsuit otherwise.
Mr. Rohani responded that all the new buildings in the Downtown must meet the CA Building Code and ADA code as part of the permit process, including how many parking spaces to include, and how many ADA parking spaces to include; these are designed as part of the project before construction begins, and get approved throughout the course of the project, get inspected, and at the end of the project when the building owner returns to get their occupancy permit, gets inspected again, including the ADA accessibility, to the most recent state codes.
Mayor Williams inquired if a building permit must be issued, and inspection performed, for a parking lot like that, which Mr. Rohani confirmed is correct.
Dr. Fuller commented that is called compliance in disability culture; you’re not really welcome, but if it must be built, build it as cheaply as possible. He mentioned the City has been audited and are $100 million in arrear with ADA services which they are aware of and which staff says they will take care of in construction, and staff is now asking him to approve construction that after all is said, you cannot just pull into a handicapped parking space on the street without a lot of trouble. He added while this may be compliant, he doesn’t think it is compliant, and therefore will vote ‘no’.
It was moved by Councilmember Meadows and seconded by Vice Mayor Shaw to adopt the resolution. AYES: Henderson, Meadows, Shaw, Williams. NOES: Fuller. (4-1) Item 4.13
Dr. Fuller mentioned he wishes to address the same thing with this item. He mentioned from what he can tell from the budget, the City wants to keep expenses down and there is a traffic signal division to handle maintenance. He expressed he is unhappy that the City is contracting out a large number of services and would much rather see a ‘meet and confer’ with workers to see if they can handle this work, if they can be trained, if they would be willing to be trained, and what the compensation would be. He suggested if nothing else, they could hire retired people to come in and work at the regular rate.
Mr. Rohani mentioned they try to provide the best service to the community including in-house and contracted work depending on the project. He explained that traffic signal maintenance is highly specialized work and not something they can send staff to a junior college for a few months to become a signal technician; it takes about 4 years of education and 8,000 hours of actual training to become a certified traffic signal electrician and technician in California. He mentioned that cities much larger than Oakley contract services because it is impractical to have these in-house resources. He added that staff wants to be smart about how they deploy their resources and funding for their services. He further explained that traffic signals are a critical part of their infrastructure and there are liability issues if they malfunction; he wants to ensure the safety of residents. He mentioned there are currently over 40 signals with 4 more to be added in the near future. He added that even if they had trained people, they don’t have space for physical operations of a separate division, e.g., a bucket truck alone is over $200k, a warehouse would be needed to store parts, and the required specialized parts cannot just be obtained through local hardware stores. He mentioned all traffic signals in Oakley are serviced by contractor monthly, quarterly and annually on different maintenance schedules to ensure they are functioning as they should.
Mayor Williams inquired if there is an indemnity agreement for contracted services.
Mr. Rohani responded that they do not have a maintenance division specialized for traffic; the work is contracted, all contracts have indemnity clauses, and contracted work is documented with reports provided. He mentioned when accidents happen at intersections and lawsuits follow, parties want to see the records when the signal was last maintained; there is a lot that goes into maintenance and documentation to ensure the City is protected.
Mayor Williams inquired if retired people, as suggested, could take this on. She mentioned she assumed they would have to maintain a license and have a warehouse.
Mr. Rohani mentioned the issue is not retired or non-retired persons; it takes several years of school and over 8,000 hours in the field to become certified so when there is a service call, the person can respond to the maintenance box that holds electronics and knows how each controller box works, much like a computer; it is specialized work.
Mayor Williams mentioned it does not look like this went out to RFP. She inquired if staff went out to companies they know, but potentially, if there was a member in the community that specializes in this type of work, if they could have bid on this job.
Mr. Rohani explained an RFP was done 4-5 years ago when this firm was selected and prior to that other RFP’s were conducted for other projects. He mentioned that DC Electric has done excellent work for the City and staff would like to continue using their services.
It was moved by Councilmember Meadows and seconded by Vice Mayor Shaw to adopt the resolution. AYES: Henderson, Meadows, Shaw, Williams. NOES: Fuller. (4-1) Item 4.16
City Clerk Libby Vreonis thanked the Councilmembers for their patience to consider the item as it had been continued several times. She mentioned corrective deeds were required of the sellers to ultimately prepare the grant deed of the property to the City which is now available.
It was moved by Councilmember Meadows and seconded by Vice Mayor Shaw to adopt the resolution. Motion was unanimous and so ordered. (5-0)
5) PUBLIC HEARINGS
5.1 Live Oak Industrial Park (TM 09-23, DR 07-23) Request for approval of a Tentative Map (TM 09-23) for condominium purposes and Design Review (DR 07-23) for the construction of eight warehouses. APN -037-100-065. (Ken Strelo, Community Development Director)
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Determination: Find the project is categorically exempt under the Infill Exemption (14 Cal. Code Regs./CEQA Guideline § 15332)
Mayor Williams announced the item.
Councilmember Henderson recused himself and left the room.
Community Development Director Ken Strelo presented the staff report and provided a PowerPoint presentation.
Councilmember Meadows inquired if a semitruck can get around the driveway.
Mr. Strelo confirmed it can and that all plans go through truck turning radius analysis.
Mayor Williams inquired if there could potentially be 16 separate uses in this plan. She also inquired if there is an option to not subdivide, such as the end two suites.
Mr. Strelo confirmed there could potentially be 16 separate uses in the building and as it is proposed when the final map is submitted, it would include those suites as needed; the applicant may wish to answer, but if before the final map is submitted and a user wanted to talk about the entire building or purchase those two suites, they could.
Mayor Williams inquired if the City’s consultants for economic development had identified this site as one of the sights to keep as light industrial.
Mr. Strelo responded that he does not have that answer off the top of his head.
Mayor Williams opened the public hearing.
Public Comment
Rich Ladeira commented that he owns the facility south of this project and he is 100% for it. He inquired if it is possible to delete the word “condominium”. He mentioned he sees no need for it; it scares him if some of these spaces are for sale that someone may purchase it and change it to something like an ADU.
Paul Seger commented that the staff report refers to this project as fitting into the infill exemption to CEQA. He pointed out that the project is smack dab in the middle of a California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment, SB 535 disadvantaged communities census tract. He mentioned this is the only one in the City of Oakley, census tract 601330205.
He mentioned SB 535 stems from California Proposition 65 which requires businesses to provide warnings to Californians about significant exposures to chemicals that cause cancer, birth defects, or other reproductive harm; many of these items would fit into the light industrial nature of the zoning. He mentioned these chemicals can be products that Californians have purchased and have in their homes or work places, or that are released into the environment.
He mentioned by requiring that this information be provided Prop 65 enables Californians to make informed decisions about their exposures to these chemicals. He shared that SB 535 reports that this project census tract is an officially designated disadvantaged community and requires this project to address how the project will improve the health and quality of life for the community. He mentioned that more than 7,000 people live in this census tract and the percent of people living below twice the poverty level in this census tract is higher than 69% of the census tracts in California, cardiovascular disease in this census tract is 85.97% higher than the census tracts in California, and asthma rates in this census tract are 84% higher than census tracts in California. He mentioned the added environmental justice component to the General Plan, he hopes the City takes it seriously, and the Sierra Club will be looking at it and tracking it.
Mayor Williams closed the public hearing.
Councilmember Meadows commented that he likes the project, they worked on it on OMAC 30+ years ago and are finally seeing it come into existence, and it is needed in Oakley. To address the comment made about use of the word “condominium”, he mentioned if there is concern that people will be living there, you’re not going to get that. He mentioned it is a great project and he supports it.
Vice Mayor Shaw agreed. She mentioned this is a different type of product than what the City currently has and there was some potential housing that was looked at for this location and was turned down, and by doing so, it provide this opportunity to do something different. She mentioned it brings to the community jobs and a different product that they do not have currently in the community, so she supports it. She commented that she can see how the word “condominiums” could be scary in terms of housing, but here because they are split buildings, it is the term that is used in real estate, but that doesn't mean people can live there.
Councilmember Meadows commented that it not only brings jobs but also small spaces for our local businesses to work out of which we don’t have, and this offers.
Mayor Williams commented that based on the comment received regarding CEQA, she assumes that to use the infill exemption to CEQA that all potential uses of light industrial were considered. She inquired what the stance on that is with there being no current tenants.
Mr. Strelo explained that when staff does a CEQA analysis to determine whether it requires an initial study or meets any of the CEQA exemptions, they look at the proposal, the application being submitted, and the project being proposed at that time; staff is examining any of the categorical exemptions that may apply and any statutory exemptions and if none apply, the project moves on to an initial study phase which is when negative declarations, mitigated negative declarations, or environmental impact reports may apply. He mentioned that with this type of project for light industrial, there are permitted by right uses, uses that are not expected to emit noise, dust, smoke etc., and then there are conditionally permitted uses, uses that may be listed with a catch all provision that sets forth that these types of uses may emit these types of things. He mentioned that conditional use permits are another type of discretionary approval; they go through their own type of analysis. He added that when a shell building comes in, staff is not looking at the worst-case scenario of what use may occupy it in the future; they are looking at the proposal in front of them.
Mayor Williams inquired if any of these concerns were brought forth to the Planning Commission.
Mr. Strelo responded that tonight is the first that he has heard of these concerns.
It was moved by Councilmember Meadows and seconded by Vice Mayor Shaw to adopt the resolution as conditioned. AYES: Fuller, Meadows, Shaw, Williams. ABSTENTIONS:
Henderson. (4-0-1)
Councilmember Henderson returned to the room.
5.2 Adopt the Resolution Confirming the Diagrams and Assessments and Ordering the Levy and Collection of the Annual Assessments for Fiscal Year 2024/25 for the City of Oakley Street Lighting and Landscape Assessment District No. 1 (Kevin Rohani, P.E., Public Works Director/City Engineer)
Public Works Director/City Engineer Kevin Rohani presented the staff report.
Mayor Williams called for questions and there being none, she opened the public hearing.
Mayor Williams inquired if there were any property owners that wanted to turn in a written protest regarding the levy of Street Lighting and Landscape Assessment District No. 1 Assessments for Fiscal Year 2024-25. There being none, she asked the City Clerk to report if there is a majority protest regarding the levy of street lighting and landscape assessment district No. 1 assessments for fiscal year 2024-25.
City Clerk Libby Vreonis confirmed there were no written protests submitted, declared there is no majority protest, and indicated proceedings may continue.
It was moved by Councilmember Meadows and seconded by Councilmember Henderson to adopt the resolution. Motion was unanimous and so ordered. (5-0) 6) REGULAR CALENDAR
6.1 Consideration of Resolutions Adopting the Fiscal Year 2024/25 Proposed Operating Budget, Statement of Financial Policies, Appropriations Limit, Adopting the Fiscal Year 2024/25 Capital Budget and Five-Year Capital Improvement Program (CIP) for Fiscal Years 2024/25 through 2028/29 and Making Findings Related Thereto, and Approving Additional Sworn Police Positions on a Temporary Basis and the Master Salary Schedule. (Jeri Tejeda, Administrative Services Director)
Administrative Services Director Jeri Tejeda presented the staff report and a PowerPoint presentation. A handout was provided with corrections to pages 247 and 257 of the budget.
Councilmember Meadows commented that he likes what staff put together, it is clearer than what he has seen in past, and he likes over hiring two officers.
Dr. Fuller commented that the presentation on the budget was exemplary and easy to follow for expenditures and allocations. He mentioned he would like to address each resolution separately. He mentioned the operating budget, financial policies, and appropriations budget look good. He commented that there was nothing in the Creekside 115 expenditure fund. He mentioned that he was bewildered by the City Clerk section of the General Outlay, pages 102- 105, as there is no metric included for Public Records Act requests (PRAs) which would seem to be a large part of the City Clerk’s responsibilities and he is hopeful that someday the State will reimburse for the requirement, but if there is no data on it, he is not sure how to assess it.
He commented that on Page 95, he is very happy to see an IT help person that can be called, and the Council can receive assistance. He requested clarification regarding the 2% and 3% increases.
Ms. Tejeda responded that 3% is for the POA and 2% is for all other general non-sworn staff.
She mentioned these were adopted in 2022 for a five-year term, with a 9% increase for both units; one unit chose to go two years without and three years with 3% and the other chose to go 1 year without with 3% in the first year, and 2% in each additional year, so overall, everyone received 9%.
Dr. Fuller inquired why PRAs are not being assessed for the City Clerk’s Office as they seem like a lot of work.
Ms. Tejeda mentioned performance measures are newer, having been added to the budget a couple of budget cycles ago, and staff is still figuring out what to include and provide those numbers so they can take note and figure something out.
City Clerk Libby Vreonis agreed with Ms. Tejeda and added that on average, the City processes about 100 PRAs each year; however, this past year, the City switched to an online records request system and has seen a substantial increase in the number of requests. She explained at this time, staff is still examining the increase because before the electronic system, departments were handling some of those requests directly, whereas now most requests are being funneled through the system, so staff is tying to get a more accurate read on the numbers, and she anticipates that information will be included in future years.
Dr. Fuller commented that he would like to see it included in the matrix in the future. He mentioned in 2023, there was a report that addressed three significant budget deficiencies, including a deficiency regarding monthly investment reports. He inquired if the deficiencies have been resolved.
Ms. Tejeda mentioned the significant deficiencies that Dr. Fuller is referring to are from the annual audit, not from the budget document, and staff has worked very hard this year to resolve those. She mentioned one deficiency was the fee schedule and that has been corrected, and staff is aware of it to apply correct charges. She asked Dr. Fuller to restate which deficiency he brought up earlier.
Dr. Fuller commented that he mentioned earlier the investment reports but specifically related to budget, the report indicated the City should get away from incremental budgets but it is still being done. He inquired if they will be moving away from looking at a prior budget and trying to envision something new or if they will continue with incremental budget and trying to figure out how much it will increase.
Ms. Tejeda explained that she does not necessarily think that they follow an incremental budget in the sense of increasing the budget by a certain percentage each time. She mentioned every department spends time reviewing their budget by line item and determines what is needed and necessary, and the amount of increase may vary for each department based on needs.
Dr. Fuller inquired if the City Clerk’s Office wanted to invest in AI to prepare the minutes, for example (he is not advocating for it), and it will take a substantial initial investment, if it would be considered for an outlay to increase that amount beyond a COLA.
Ms. Tejeda explained that anything that would be a large add to the budget, currently over $50k, would require a form to be completed by the department listing the need and all the reasons why it is needed, and all departments’ requests are submitted at the same time for review by her and the City Manager and are discussed with the department directors to review what the budget can hold, and then they determine what provides the biggest benefit to the citizens of Oakley. She mentioned they are submitted annually on a form, so they are not just buried in a line item on the budget somewhere.
Mayor Williams inquired if ARPA funds could be considered if there is something moving around in the budget for some of the things they have received public comments for such as additional staffing for summer camp. She mentioned she referred the commenter to the schools as well.
She mentioned they have heard from the seniors as well. She inquired if some of the money does not come through, if they could decide as a Council, where they might be able to reallocate ARPA funds. She referred to page 152.
Ms. Tejeda mentioned ARPA reallocations were done mid-year. She suggested they bring it back again mid-year and discuss where funding is and any reallocations at that time. She mentioned page 152 provides where ARPA funding has been allocated but it doesn’t show how much has been spent. She added that much of it is being spent, the largest portion, $3 million, going toward the library. She mentioned the only other funding that has some potential wiggle room is the amount allocated to technology enhancements. She shared as staff completes upcoming phases of the new EERP system in the next weeks, they will have a better understanding of their needs and what funding would be additional.
Mayor Williams mentioned people ask all the time why they can’t just shift money and she wanted to be able to identify any buckets of money that may be flexible should the majority of the Council decide something is important to pursue and ARPA funds seem to her the easiest place to get it from, but it sounds like it is down to the penny to pay for some of these things.
She added that she just wanted to have some thought as to reallocation if it is possible.
Ms. Tejeda mentioned pages 247 and 257 had errors that have been corrected and added to the budget.
Resolution #1: Approve a Resolution to Adopt the Fiscal Year 2024/25 Proposed Operating Budget, Statement of Financial Policies and Appropriations Limit It was moved by Dr. Fuller and seconded by Councilmember Meadows to adopt the Fiscal Year 2024/25 proposed Operating Budget, Statement of Financial Policies and Appropriations Limit.
Motion was unanimous and so ordered. (5-0)
Resolution #2: Approve a Resolution to Adopt a Fiscal Year 2024/25 Recommended Capital Budget and Five-Year Capital Improvement Plan for Fiscal Years 2024/25 through 2028/29.
Dr. Fuller inquired why we submit bids in the manner that we do with the CIP budget; how it gets to the bid trays.
Public Works Director/City Engineer Kevin Rohani explained that when staff prepares a project it is advertised by publishing in the newspaper and provided to all plan rooms in the Bay Area (where contractors go to get information on which projects are being offered in cities); notification gets sent to all of them. He mentioned that CIP 280 is currently being advertised and that at the July 9 Council meeting, he will present an award of contract for the Council’s consideration. He mentioned bids will be opened June 27.
Dr. Fuller mentioned during the last meeting Mr. Rohani addressed contract specifications and he went through a list of certain items to meet the standard. He inquired why they can’t do that for labor and meet with labor. He mentioned they just received a public comment regarding wage theft and the California Attorney General is concerned about wage theft and labor violations. He inquired why they can’t come up with a project labor agreement before projects go out to bid to make sure we’re getting the specifications involved.
Mr. Rohani mentioned that is a policy decision for the Council and discussion would be needed to review the impact of that on the projects that go to bid. He explained that all projects are bid to state requirements, including prevailing wage, and staff runs a tight ship on the bid process, records, payment records, and certified payrolls. He shared that the Council may recall that the Downtown project was brought forth to the Council in the fall of 2022 for award and Dr. Fuller had concern about his perspective and as a result, the Council requested staff bring a peer reviewer to peer review all the payrolls that staff reviews so they hired a consultant to perform that peer review for all certified payrolls and he is pleased to report that was done with a clean bill of health without any irregularities. He mentioned he is not naïve to those things happening with construction contracts but anything under the City’s purview, he will make sure that is not going on.
Dr. Fuller commented he will take that answer as a ‘yes’ if we so want to. He mentioned that he thinks staff already knows his position on $50k for a $100 million ADA deficit. He added that an audit was needed, the audit was conducted and showed $100 million in arrears, and he bets if another audit was conducted, it would now show $150 million in arrears. He mentioned he understands that there will always be 4 votes and there is going to have to be another way to bring this city up to speed with ADA because the City is “just plain ignoring us and he gets it.
He mentioned he doesn’t see anything for art and the community, and the seniors are correct; we need a library. He mentioned he hesitates with approving CIPs when they haven’t even looked at the County’s Las Dunes building. He commented that he will be voting ‘no’ and also would like to look into changing the policy for bids involving labor.
Mr. Rohani commented that aside from labor, Dr. Fuller was part of the process, including the Planning Commission, and the CIP program was fully discussed, and Dr. Fuller is well aware of the City’s resource structure; the City does not have unlimited funds and there are always competing interests. He mentioned if the Council wants E. Cypress Road to be done, something will have to give. He agreed that $50k is a drop in the bucket for a $150 million shortfall; they are doing what they can with the resources available while focusing on the highest priority projects that the Council had directed for the benefit of the community. He mentioned that the seniors may be another discussion, but the City has made substantial investments at the current Senior Center including a new roof, new HVAC, fixed the kitchen floor and doors, replaced the freezer, etc. so it is disingenuous to say the City does not do anything for the seniors when Public Works staff pretty much maintains the building. He mentioned that art would have to be a broader discussion by the Council and priorities if they wish to include art as part of CIPs, but right now staff has been focused on top projects of priority, E. Cypress Road (under construction) and Laurel Road (he will bring forth an award of contract July 9 for consideration).
It was moved by Councilmember Meadows and seconded by Vice Mayor Shaw to adopt the resolution. AYES: Henderson, Meadows, Shaw, Williams. NOES: Fuller. (4-1) Resolution #3: Approve a Resolution to Adopt the Proposed Salary Schedule Effective July 7, 2024, Including the Approval of the Senior Planner Classification It was moved by Councilmember Meadows and seconded by Councilmember Henderson to adopt the resolution. Motion was unanimous and so ordered. (5-0) Resolution #4: Approve a Resolution Authorizing Two Additional Sworn Police Positions on a Temporary Basis
It was moved by Councilmember Meadows and seconded by Vice Mayor Shaw to adopt the resolution. Motion was unanimous and so ordered. (5-0)
6.2 Adopt a Resolution Approving the Third Amendment to Employment Agreement Between the City of Oakley and Joshua McMurray (Derek Cole, City Attorney) Assistant City Attorney Elizabeth Fratarcangeli presented the staff report, mentioning that this amendment provides a 5% increase in the City Manager’s annual base salary to $291,375 and increases his severance to a 9-month period with a right to earn 3 additional months, up to 12 months of severance, based on his time with the City. She mentioned that the total fiscal impact for a 5% pay increase is $17,808 annually, a 3% increase was assumed in the FY 24/25 budget document, so if this item is approved, staff would request a budget amendment to reconcile the 3% anticipated increase to the proposed 5% increase in the amount of $7,125 for FY 24/25 funded by the General Fund, and these are the only substantive changes to the City Manager’s employment contract.
It was moved by Councilmember Henderson and seconded by Councilmember Meadows to adopt the resolution. AYES: Henderson, Meadows, Shaw, Williams. NOES: Fuller. (4-1) Mayor Williams called for a 5-minute break at 8:39 p.m. The Council reconvened 8:47 p.m.
6.3 Adopt a Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to execute the Sixth Amendment to the Agreement with Cole Huber LLP for City Attorney Services (Joshua McMurray, City Manager)
City Manager Joshua McMurray presented the staff report. He mentioned approval of this item would allow for a 3-year term and the fiscal impact for general retainer services would be $192,000 in the first year, FY 24/25 (11% increase), $198,000 in the second year, FY 25/26 (3% increase) and $204,000 in the third year, FY 26/27 (3% increase).
Dr. Fuller requested clarification if the fiscal year impact for the first year will be an increase of $20k which Mr. McMurray confirmed is correct, approximately.
It was moved by Vice Mayor Shaw and seconded by Councilmember Henderson to adopt the resolution. AYES: Henderson, Meadows, Shaw, Williams. NOES: Fuller. (4-1)
6.4 Adopt a Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to Execute a Joint Use Agreement and Side Agreement between the City of Oakley and the Oakley Union Elementary School District (Joshua McMurray, City Manager) City Manager Joshua McMurray presented the staff report.
Vice Mayor Shaw commented that besides E. Cypress Road, parks are probably the next biggest things she hears about from residents, especially regarding Vintage Park which is in her district. She added that Mr. McMurray mentioned in his report that it will be discussed during mid-year budget review, but she would like him to address the timeline as right now the park is unsafe and she understands that it would need to go out for bid, but she would like the public to have an idea when it may happen.
Mr. McMurray mentioned that demolition of certain playgrounds outlined in the agreement is the first step and the City has agreed to use its Public Works staff to do the demolition; it gives staff experience and is more cost effective for both the City and School District. He mentioned demolition will happen this summer/fall, staff will bring the mid-year budget to Council in February 2025, and with the Council’s approval, staff will add a project into the CIP to address the play structure at Vintage and the deficiencies at the O'Hara Park Middle School structure.
He added that if approved into the CIP, staff would have to look at design, bid the project, Council would consider award of the contract, and work would commence probably mid-2025.
Vice Mayor Shaw inquired if the $75,000 reimbursement would still work the same; they would have to provide the work and submit receipts to get reimbursed which Mr. McMurray confirmed is correct.
Dr. Fuller asked Mr. McMurray if he could go over again what he mentioned about raising prices and bids.
Mr. McMurray responded that the School District is making a one-time contribution to the City to address deficiencies with playgrounds; it is not enough to address community parks. He mentioned Vintage Parkway does not have a City park and the City needs to deliver a playground to that community that is appropriate to the number of residents that live there, similar to what the City did here at Civic Center Plaza. He added that staff’s plan is to add a CIP at mid-year to the FY 24/25 budget, staff will bring that to the Council in February 2025 for consideration, and if approved, staff would have to design, bid, award, and construct the project.
Dr. Fuller inquired if he was saying they can repair what is there now.
Mr. McMurray responded ‘no’ and explained that there is nothing that the City can use or re-use at the Vintage Parkway playground so it will be a scrape, as will be the Oakley Elementary playground. He mentioned that the O'Hara Park Middle School playground is still in good condition, there are pieces of the play structure that need replacement, a bench that needs to be replaced, and some other site furnishings that can be replaced.
Dr. Fuller inquired what is the discussion; if they go along with it, if Vintage Parkway will be all taken care of with a cheaper price and everybody over there will have a park, and that is it, or if they will still need to go through the CIP process.
Mr. McMurray explained that the CIP process still needs to ensue. He explained that this agreement gives the City a path forward from the current agreement and it outlines how the City gets to a new playground at Vintage Parkway, how they fix the playground at O’Hara, what happens in terms of maintenance obligations, and reimbursement from the City to the District for maintenance.
Dr. Fuller commented that it seems like irreconcilable differences; it has been a thorn in the City’s side for a long time and the City has spent a lot of time and effort to get compliance it never received. He mentioned that he is thankful for Lynelle Fuller (no relation to him) and Sherry Seat sitting down and for people here working out the agreement, but the bottom line is he would like to know why the City can’t buy the property from the School District if they would be willing to sell so the City can build a playground and not have to worry about Vintage Parkway anymore, whether the School District is going to or not going to comply, and whether a contract is going to or not going to work.
Mr. McMurray commented that he can’t answer those questions because they haven’t had those discussions with the School District. He mentioned it is possible, but he would not allude to the fact that it is something they could do or want to do; it is a discussion for the Council to provide direction if it wants to explore that. He explained that they looked at the agreement in place now as something the City can’t live with because unfortunately, the way it was structured is that it automatically renews. He explained further that if no action is taken now, the current term would automatically extend another 25 years with the City having to pay the School District $150k each year and right now there are several facilities that are deficient that the community relies on for use. He mentioned they worked collaboratively with the School District for well over a year to get to this agreement and it is a good agreement that places the burden of playgrounds with the City which it is good at and allows the School District to address their field issues specifically, so those two pieces of the puzzle are separated and specifically defined. He added that it reduces the City’s overall burden of the financial structure of the agreement, but it also places the burden of constructing projects, specifically the Vintage Parkway park site, on the City so there is give and take and he believes it is a mutually beneficial agreement to both parties. He mentioned they have never been at the point they are at now in agreement in principle to what is now on paper. He also mentioned that the School Board will consider it tomorrow night and he doesn’t expect any issues as the sub-committee consisting of Mayor Williams and Councilmember Meadows as well as the School District’s two Board members have been engaged and there is buy-in from both sides.
Dr. Fuller inquired what happens if the City does not choose for the agreement to automatically renew, if it were to convey that they are done.
Mr. McMurray explained that the agreement is not something he would ever recommend entering as the term is 25 years and a lot can change during that time and it has as they have discussed; auto-renewal is unique as usually the parties want to meet and confirm that the agreement is working for both. He mentioned they are recommending a 5-year term upfront, with a 2-year automatic extension; if they do nothing, the current agreement will automatically extend and the City is on the hook so they have to do something in his opinion.
Dr. Fuller commented that there is nobody here that he can sit and talk about, so he won’t.
Councilmember Henderson mentioned he believes his question was answered but inquired if the agreement is agendized for the School Board meeting tomorrow night, which Mr. McMurray confirmed is correct.
Vice Mayor Shaw mentioned Mr. McMurray answered one of her questions as well in that it is not just playgrounds, but playgrounds and hardscapes and the bench was what she wanted to bring up. She inquired if anything that is not turf, not just the play structure, would be the City’s responsibility, which Mr. McMurray confirmed is correct.
Vice Mayor Shaw shared that she had someone inquire about the City purchasing the property as Dr. Fuller has mentioned, and she believes that this is an alternative to buying the property that will give residents now City maintained play structures in areas where residents don’t currently have play structures in those areas. She mentioned to buy it and build play structures would be way more than this agreement. She also mentioned that the residents in Vintage Parkway use the park a lot. She expressed that she is in favor of it.
Mayor Williams commented that the timeline Mr. McMurray mentioned would provide completion around mid-2025 and that would be fine for something completely gated off or demolished, but she receives emails all the time regarding the bench at O’Hara Park ripping clothing and would like to know if there is a way to update or remove the bench before February 2025.
Mr. McMurray responded that staff can revisit critical pieces of infrastructure that may need to be replaced much sooner.
Mayor Williams mentioned once the City maintains the equipment with this agreement, residents could use the City’s app to report any issues as with other parks the City currently maintains so they can assume it would have a much quicker response time.
Mr. McMurray confirmed that is correct; residents can report an issue through the Oakley OnDemand app, it goes to staff immediately, and staff would address it.
Mayor Williams commented that she is very excited about this and very happy with people that came to the table. She expressed gratitude for their effort and for people who want to make it right for residents.
Councilmember Meadows agreed they had positive conversations with the representatives from the School District Board.
Mayor Williams called for public comment; there were none.
It was moved by Councilmember Meadows and seconded by Councilmember Henderson to adopt the resolution. Motion was unanimous and so ordered. (5-0)
6.5 Adopt a Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to Execute an Agreement between the City of Oakley and the Oakley Union Elementary School District for School Resource Officer Services (Joshua McMurray, City Manager) Mr. McMurray presented staff report. He mentioned after the draft agreement had been prepared and the agenda was published, he had an additional conversation with the School District Superintendent and he requested a revision to the organization term of the agreement.
In addition to the last sentence which they worded together, the following language is proposed:
"To ensure collaboration, OUESD may request a personnel change in the SRO from the City of Oakley. That change may or may not be accommodated depending on staffing levels at the Police Department." He explained that if they do not feel the SRO is a good fit, they can have a mutual discussion and if the City is able to make that change, it will, otherwise, there is language to protect the City.
Vice Mayor Shaw commented that Mr. McMurray mentioned this agreement is modeled after the high school SRO agreement. She inquired if staff is happy with that agreement and when that agreements will be renewed.
Mr. McMurray commented that in his opinion, it has been a good agreement. He asked Chief of Police Paul Beard to comment. Mr. McMurray mentioned the high school agreement is out of term and he has been actively discussing it with LUHSD Superintendent Eric Volta who is leaving soon to a new position, but he will continue to work with LUHSD to get it up to date for a new cost share and new term.
Vice Mayor Shaw commented she was just curious if it is similar.
Mr. McMurray commented that he has had previous discussions with the Superintendent and he wouldn’t expect the District to have any issue with what has been discussed.
Chief Beard mentioned that during his tenure in Oakley, even prior to being Chief, he has seen how the SRO is modeled and the high school has changed over the past few years. He mentioned the SRO used to be treated a juvenile detective and the SRO would be pulled to work at the Police Department to investigate cases. He explained that responsibility has been taken away from the SRO to allow the SRO to be at the school 100% of the time. He mentioned that has been good modeling and the high school is happy with that arrangement. He added that the proposed SRO would follow the same modeling and would be at the schools 100% of the time, ideally 50% at each school. He mentioned that the SRO will need to make decisions which campus needs more of his or her time. He concluded by mentioning that he believes it is a good model that they have in place right now.
Mayor Williams inquired how many middle schools do this around the area.
Chief Beard mentioned that Pittsburg and Brentwood have them at the middle schools.
Mayor Williams inquired if they have a split or dedicated SRO in Brentwood for the three middle schools.
Chief Beard mentioned he is not certain but knows that they have more than one SRO.
Mayor Williams inquired if both schools equally need an SRO, if they could add an SRO under this agreement or if it would be a new agreement.
Mr. McMurray mentioned this agreement could be amended.
Councilmember Henderson inquired if this item is on the School Board agenda tomorrow night which Mr. McMurray confirmed it is.
Councilmember Henderson commented that the City is out in front of them on both.
Mr. McMurray confirmed that is correct; it is the way their meeting dates lined up.
Dr. Fuller commented that he likes the agreement. He mentioned on the second page under purpose, he wonders why it comes out so strong when the agreement speaks to collaboration all the way through. He mentioned there will be a decision made regarding the atmosphere that it will create but it doesn’t mention anything about collaboration. He suggested the first part of the sentence begin with “In collaboration with OUESD and OPD, an atmosphere will be created…” He mentioned he likes the idea of collaboration. He shared that he just happened to go through an American Educational Research Association webinar not about this, but they mentioned SROs, and he doesn’t know what their measurements are or how they address the study, but there are a few studies out that say the SROs are not working as they are supposed to work and there are some difficulties. He mentioned he would like to see the City’s work; it has a lot to offer. He commented that he sees it as the School District’s responsibility to address ongoing behavior and discipline problems, and the SRO can work with them, but it is not the City’s responsibility; it is the School District’s responsibility. He mentioned if the School District believes it is a crime, they can contact the SRO and the SRO can make a decision, and the City and School District will work collaboratively, but OUESD has the credential for an educational atmosphere and should not rely on the City to address discipline.
Chief Beard responded that regardless of the wording of the agreement, it has been a very collaborative effort thus far to ensure this agreement is just right to ensure there is a collaborative relationship between both parties. He shared the ultimate desire is for the middle schools to receive law enforcement services at both campuses. He mentioned the SRO is not assigned to be the disciplinarian for the school; the SRO is to prevent crime and provide a law enforcement service.
Dr. Fuller mentioned he would be glad to move it with that in there.
Mr. McMurray commented that if any amendments are proposed, they have not been discussed with School District, so he would need to provide those to them. He added in the event they are substantive, and the School District doesn’t agree with those amendments, staff would need to come back with the agreement.
Dr. Fuller mentioned he doesn’t see why they would disagree, but he would like to propose to include that OUESD and OPD will work collaboratively to create that atmosphere in the section of the agreement that addresses “Purpose.”
Mr. McMurray inquired if Dr. Fuller is requesting to add it to the beginning of that paragraph.
Dr. Fuller confirmed that is correct; he would like the paragraph to begin by including that, “Working collaboratively, both agencies agree to…” He moved to approve the item with that amendment.
Mayor Williams inquired what would be the process as this is going before the School Board tomorrow.
Mr. McMurray explained that if the Council approves the item with this amendment, staff would provide the amended agreement to the Superintendent to present to the School District Board and they would vote.
Councilmember Meadows requested clarification on the wording to be added at the beginning of the paragraph.
Dr. Fuller responded that he is proposing, “In collaboration with OUESD and OPD, the purpose is to create and encourage through every useful purpose…” Vice Mayor Shaw commented that she believes it addressed in the middle where it includes “students, parents, OUESD employees, and Police Officers, so it is even more inclusive than just OUESD and OPD, and she feels like it addresses that collaborative effort and even more parties in that collaboration.
Dr. Fuller mentioned communication is nice and encouraged, but decision-making involves a collaboration between the Chief of Police, the principals, and the School District.
Chief Beard commented that he doesn’t have the agreement in front of him, but it sounds like a minor change that he wishes to have included and that is what needs to be ironed out.
Mr. McMurray mentioned staff has notes on what Dr. Fuller just mentioned so if there is a motion, it is seconded, and there is a vote to approve, staff will present that to the School District, otherwise staff will present it to the School District ‘as is’.
Mayor Williams mentioned there was a first to include that amendment. She called for a second on the amendment. The motion died for lack of a second.
It was moved by Councilmember Henderson and seconded by Councilmember Meadows to adopt the resolution as written. Motion was unanimous and so ordered. (5-0) 7) REPORTS
7.1 CITY MANAGER
(a) City Manager
City Manager Joshua McMurray announced that the 2nd Annual Juneteenth Celebration will be held June 15 at Civic Center Plaza, 10am-1pm, and Summerfest will be held at Civic Center Plaza June 29, with a parade on Main Street, 9am-10am, and event, 11am-4pm. He mentioned with the heat and longer days, splash pads hours have been extended 10am-8pm until Labor Day and are open at Creekside and NunnWilson parks.
(b) Business License Update
Mr. McMurray mentioned the list for May is provided in the agenda packet. (c) Report from the Oaks Apartments
Mr. McMurray mentioned that The Oaks Apartments representative is present from WinnResidential.
Vice Mayor Shaw inquired how residents that were displaced have been adjusting. She thanked them for providing the work order real page print out.
Katie with WinnResidential mentioned she is the regional manager and supervisor for the property (not on site).
Mayor Williams inquired if she is the same Katie as in “Coffee with Katie”.
Katie responded that is correct, residents are glad to be home, staff helped with cleaning out refrigerators due to the power outages, and residents received a stipend for food and rent reduction for the days they were out. She mentioned site staff did a great job coordinating the move; they had shuttles to ensure residents returned safely as quickly as they could. She mentioned a few people had to stay a few days longer because they need the elevator and it took a little longer to have repaired.
Vice Mayor Shaw shared that she was on site as residents were moving back and the community room was full of residents happy to be home. She mentioned that many of the seniors asked her questions about programming, the difference between Section 8 housing and tax credit housing, and many told her they don’t know how to apply for Section 8. She inquired if they provide that type of education through their social services or activity coordinator, and if not, can they bring someone in to provide that education so residents, especially seniors, know how to apply for services, including utilities; i.e., CARE program, or Section 8 where they can keep their apartment but where their rent would be determined on their income rather than market rate.
Katie mentioned they do provide utility and food assistance and have a lot of information that is provided from their office. Regarding Section 8 housing, she mentioned they usually direct residents to Section 8 for the County and any temporary rental assistance programs they are aware of.
Vice Mayor Shaw commented that is great, but they are waiting until there is a need; if management provides information upfront to residents of available options, then residents can come privately to staff to discuss.
Katie mentioned she wrote down the suggestion and will take it to their next meeting.
Dr. Fuller mentioned he previously inquired about the purpose of senior housing and management couldn’t provide an answer from what he could see. He mentioned in reading the letter from HUD, you can put seniors into one area as long as they know they are going into one area, but it is designed to facilitate elderly people is what is meant if he remembers correctly and what he is not hearing from management is why it is advantageous to be living in that apartment. He mentioned he is hearing from people living in that area that they are being maltreated, they are angry, they do not feel they are being addressed, the staff is discourteous, and management can’t answer what is the advantage to live in senior housing. He asked Katie what the advantage is and how is it being carried out for 55+ years old in the senior housing versus being inclusive throughout the complex.
Katie commented that the entire complex is open to all seniors and they can apply and would qualify for any of the buildings. She mentioned the benefit to the senior building is that it is more quiet and less disruptive without kids and guests, and it is more exclusive for them so they may relax in the community room without anyone underage intruding on their time and space; it is voluntary for them.
Dr. Fuller commented that he is hearing management and residents, and he would like to hear residents say it is so nice to be living there.
Katie mentioned when family housing was built on the same lot, a couple of the seniors were residents then and were upset that they had to now share space with family housing.
Dr. Fuller mentioned as Vice Mayor Shaw pointed out, that many seniors do not know what the advantage is for them. He provided an example such as having a doctor note for a CPAP machine could reduce an electric bill. He mentioned maybe they can include in programming an event such as a senior dance.
Katie commented that they had a sock hop last year.
Vice Mayor Shaw commented that the CPAP machine reduced utility bill is available to all, not just senior housing. She mentioned that some seniors indicated after the last meeting that they don’t want to live in the family housing buildings; those that choose to live in senior housing want to be with same age group with whom they share the same interests. She mentioned some have taken a unit in a family housing as a placeholder until a senior building apartment becomes available; where she works, it can take 3-4 years (62+ years old). She mentioned seniors want their own aging in place space where they can stay out on congregate living but still have some independence within a community of people their own age.
Dr. Fuller commend that is called inclusion.
Mayor Williams inquired when seniors apply if it meets the different buildings, i.e., Oak Forest Senior Villas, Oak Place Senior Villas, or Oak Grove Terrace.
Katie mentioned one of the first questions they ask applicants if they are over 55 years of age is if they prefer a senior or family building.
Mayor Williams inquired if management does not force residents into senior building just because they are over the age of 55.
Katie confirmed that is correct and mentioned that it takes 1.5 times rent to qualify for one of the senior buildings which is a benefit to them because of fixed income, and it 2.5 times rent to qualify for family housing, so it is a benefit to seniors to live in the senior building.
Mayor Williams commented on the real page report, the average days to complete, there are discrepancies in how quickly things are taken care of between buildings. She inquired if that is due to the complexity of the work orders because it seems like a long time.
Katie mentioned that she knows Oke Johnson with WinnResidential spoke about it during the last meeting, but it is different to see the chart. She explained that when residents put in work orders, they can be held in the system for various reasons, i.e., working with vendors, it may be lower priority than other work orders, or it could be a preventative maintenance situation that they put in the system, all of which tend to throw off the numbers for response time. She mentioned their maintenance director is working with the site right now to have the numbers be more accurate; they are moving preventative maintenance items to a schedule, so it doesn’t throw off those numbers and they are checking older work orders to see why they were stalled and to make sure they are completed timely.
Mayor Williams commented that she has heard there is some frustration with how long work orders take so residents are saying they are not even putting in work orders, so she is telling them that if they want things fixed, there has to be a record that the problem exists. She mentioned she would appreciate refining the report to call out any health and safety situations, i.e., elevators and trash chutes, and for people to still place work orders for these. She mentioned people seem to like using the carts if they can provide an update on that and also the progress on posting the emergency evacuation plan and having drills.
Katie mentioned they are discussing the plan and getting it in place; they will include it in the next report.
Mayor Williams requested that they involve all agencies, i.e., fire, so they understand what the plan is.
Vice Mayor Shaw inquired with the continued completion of backlog on workorders and changing items to a preventative maintenance schedule, if Katie sees improvement in the number of days to complete.
Katie confirmed that is correct.
Vice Mayor Shaw mentioned she understands with a red tag emergency that work orders will be delayed. She inquired if management ever included the common areas, i.e., elevators, laundry rooms, in the app where residents can submit work orders. She mentioned that Oke Johnson discussed putting that in during the ad-hoc meetings and she think it might help people to feel comfortable to place work orders.
Katie mentioned their software is RealPage and Oke was working with them for a fix on that, but if it is a common area issue, residents can call site staff and staff can enter work orders into the system. She shared that the app is specific to units for work orders, payments, etc.; there is not an option to place work orders for common areas.
Vice Mayor Shaw inquired for residents who don’t like to use tech if they can call in work orders which Katie confirmed is correct.
7.2 OAKLEY CITY COUNCIL/OAKLEY CITY COUNCIL ACTING AS THE SUCCESSOR
AGENCY TO THE OAKLEY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
(a) Reports from Council Liaisons to Regional Committees, Commissions and Boards AND Oakley City Council/Oakley City Council Acting as the Successor Agency to the Oakley Redevelopment Agency
Mayor Meadows reported that he attended the CCTA Planning Committee meeting last Thursday.
Vice Mayor Shaw reported that she attended the Contra Costa Mayors Conference and the Freedom High School graduation ceremony.
Councilmember Henderson reported that he attended the Ironhouse Sanitary District Board meeting ISD on June 4 which involved mostly closed session as they try to fill the General Manager position. He also reported attending Supervisor Burgis’ Bay Area Affordable Housing Bond discussion on June 5; it was a good discussion with about 7 people in the audience.
Mayor Williams reported that on June 5, she attended the Hijas Del Campo casita move-in; they worked with Carondelet High School to put tiny homes on a farm in Brentwood for farm workers and have future plans to do the same in Oakley. She also reported that she attended a BAFHA work session, where there was an explanation about BAHFA and the different things ABAG is trying to bring; there is additional literature for anyone interested. She also reported attending the Mayors Conference where the County Library provided a presentation on its locations, and they got to see more from the County’s perspective about the increase in usage and physical check outs, and they received information regarding plans and resources they have been working on as well as a self-service pilot program. She mentioned ABAG received the HCD report on the 7th RHNA cycle and they have asked for transparency on how the numbers are derived, and how vacant units and unhoused are calculated. She also mentioned that BART has extensive repairs coming up requiring bus bridges through 2025. She announced that Port Chicago Weekend is coming up with more information available on its website. She also announced that there will be workshops for people who wish to run for office in Lafayette on June 22, in Antioch on June 24, and in El Cerrito on June 26. She also reported attending the Meals on Wheels Gala and she got to see the impact they have out here. (b) Requests for Future Agendas
There were no requests for future agenda items.
8) WORK SESSIONS
None.
9) CLOSED SESSION
None.
10) ADJOURN
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 9:57 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted,
Libby Vreonis
City Clerk